Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You've said this several times, and I've let it pass. But c'mon--hundreds of thousands? A bit extreme, dontcha think? Even if every single resident of Scranton moved here it would only be another 72,000 people. Yes, some Californians are moving here, but not the entire population of San Diego. Could you show us the statistics showing hundreds of thousands of people will be moving to Nova?
The Washington Metropolitan Council of Governments was projecting in late 2007 that the population of the DC metropolitan area would increase by hundreds of thousands over the next two decades. I don't know if their projections historically have been accurate (planning types like to anticipate such increases to justify more expenditures on planning studies), or how continued economic turmoil might affect migration and birth rates.
I came across two interesting articles this morning - one noting that Chicago is celebrating the 100th anniversary of Daniel Burnham's brilliant master plan for the City of Chicago. An excellent reminder that "thinking big" can pay huge dividends down the road. The other article noted that many New England cities and towns are now full of dilipidated and foreclosed-upon "three-decker" rowhouses that were the "affordable housing" of the 1890s and that many architectural buffs now adore. An excellent reminder that most people, given a choice, value space and privacy.
The Washington Metropolitan Council of Governments was projecting in late 2007 that the population of the DC metropolitan area would increase by hundreds of thousands over the next two decades. I don't know if their projections historically have been accurate (planning types like to anticipate such increases to justify more expenditures on planning studies), or how continued economic turmoil might affect migration and birth rates.
The problem I have with this study is it's mathematical but not logical. In other words, it's based on the growth that happened over the previous 20 years. It then assumes the progression will continue in increasing multiples. But as you note, they don't bother to consider how continued economic turmoil might affect migration and birth rates. Nor do they suggest what sort of industry will be moving here or created to employ all these "hundreds of thousands" of people.
This is not California, folks. People don't move here for the weather or because they dream of becoming a movie star or because it's the happening place for young people. They move here because they've been offered a job. So what's going to be creating are all these hundreds of thousands of jobs?
IMO, NOVA will continue to see plenty of growth. (And personally, I think that's good news. I'm happy to see the housing inventory decrease.) But let's be realistic--as with all other urban areas around the country, it will not be quite as dramatic as this report suggests. Unless, of course, they know of some important industry that's coming to the area that is being kept secret from the rest of us.
I really get tired of these overly dramatic "scare" reports from groups that are either angling for money or power. They start with a core that has some truth, but then blow it out of proportion until it's all just a bunch of bull.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JEB77
I came across two interesting articles this morning - one noting that Chicago is celebrating the 100th anniversary of Daniel Burnham's brilliant master plan for the City of Chicago. An excellent reminder that "thinking big" can pay huge dividends down the road. The other article noted that many New England cities and towns are now full of dilipidated and foreclosed-upon "three-decker" rowhouses that were the "affordable housing" of the 1890s and that many architectural buffs now adore. An excellent reminder that most people, given a choice, value space and privacy.
I read that in WSJ this morning. Very interesting article, indeed.
However, I have seen the population growth projections for Northern Virginia, and they're not a very promising sight for people like me who want to preserve the gorgeous natural beauty of Loudoun County (and as much of the dense tree canopy of here in Reston as possible for that matter) when I consider what percentage of those people are going to want to live in the next version of South Riding, Broadlands, or Loudoun Valley Estates, plowing over even more farmlands and verdant meadows in the process. At some point Northern Virginia DOES need to become pseudo-communist and draw up urban growth boundaries, similar to what are in place in Oregon and Lexington, Kentucky as two prime examples.
If you truly want land in Loudoun to remain unused, what you need to do is get together a group of like minded friends and buy the land yourselves. But don't try to tell property owners they have no right to use their land. IMO, it's incredibly unethical (not to mention selfish) to tell a property owner that he must leave his meadow vacant because ScranBarre enjoys looking at it while he takes a drive in the country.
Virginia had a very bad experience with carpet baggers after the civil war. As a result we are highly defensive about our property owners having the right to profit from their land and to use their land as they see fit.
Oregon has growth boundaries? Well whoop-te-do. Personally, I don't want to live in Oregon. Portland has growth limits in place and guess what--their economy is in the toilet. Oregon has the second highest unemployment in the country, and small businesses do not thrive under the oppression of all those regulations.
Yeah I agree with normie. If a farmer has had land in his family for generations, who are we to tell him he can't sell out to developers? It's his land.
Growth boundaries don't work anyway. Stop growth in Loudon? It'll just leap over Loudon and go to West Virginia. It already has!
The current regulations in Western Loudon are the worst. They limit you to like one house per 10 acres or something like that. It doesn't preserve farmland or meadows; it just encourages mansions with 10 acre yards.
On the other hand, I'm all in favor of the counties buying up land to preserve for parks. And I'm also in favor of increasing density closer in to relieve some of the pent-up housing demand here. What I'm not in favor of is artificial limits on growth that don't actually stop sprawl; they just shift it from one county to another.
If you truly want land in Loudoun to remain unused, what you need to do is get together a group of like minded friends and buy the land yourselves. But don't try to tell property owners they have no right to use their land. IMO, it's incredibly unethical (not to mention selfish) to tell a property owner that he must leave his meadow vacant because ScranBarre enjoys looking at it while he takes a drive in the country .
Virginia had a very bad experience with carpet baggers after the civil war. As a result we are highly defensive about our property owners having the right to profit from their land and to use their land as they see fit .
Oregon has growth boundaries? Well whoop-te-do. Personally, I don't want to live in Oregon. Portland has growth limits in place and guess what--their economy is in the toilet. Oregon has the second highest unemployment in the country, and small businesses do not thrive under the oppression of all those regulations.
Yeah, but what if what the land owner does impacts the community as a whole? What if Farmer Joe, wants to sell his property to a developer that wants to develop a drag strip. Is it right for me or my neighbors to have to tolerate the noise from the new drag strip just because Farmer Joe wanted to sell it to the highest bidder? That's an extreme example, but what about selling to a developer that wants to develop over 25,000 homes off a 2-lane road, shouldn't the community have a say, since they will also be impacted by this, through not only taxes and infrastructure, but property value as well?
I agree we do need to be mindful of private property rights, but at the same time, we can't just say screw the community as whole. While I don't agree with total growth restriction, I think communities should build green belts and come up with a long range plan on how they will grow and build infrastructure over the years, instead of allowing developers to do whatever they want. I think that's what ScranBarre was trying to point out.
BTW, thanks guyincognito for posting those videos on Arlington. I hope Fairfax County will take a similar approach with Tysons Corner and other areas in the future.
That's an extreme example, but what about selling to a developer that wants to develop over 25,000 homes off a 2-lane road, shouldn't the community have a say, since they will also be impacted by this, through not only taxes and infrastructure, but property value as well?
The community can establish some zoning restrictions, but they can't keep land from being developed. And, they can always buy the property from the landowner. That's what happened with Meadowlark Gardens. The entire eastern half of the park was purchased by Fairfax County after the owner of the land began negotiations with a developer and people were upset by the development plans.
By the way, developers don't just "do what they want." Projects go through a lengthy approval process and during that time the counties negotiate all sorts of things. Developers usually end up picking up the tab for roads, interchanges, sidewalks, and a certain amount of park space and playgrounds. In addition, HOAs are almost aways required to set a certain amount of the land aside as "natural" common areas.
Yeah I agree with normie. If a farmer has had land in his family for generations, who are we to tell him he can't sell out to developers? It's his land.
If a farmer has land and wants to sell it to another farmer, there's no reason he can't do so. If he wants to repurpose his land for tract housing it is fully within the purvue of the government to make a decision on whether to rezone his property. This is a good thing - it keeps your neighbor from turning their residential property into a hog farm or building a shanty-town on it.
We need more oversight into how individual property owners decide to devlop their land, not less. Normie, if you are 100% in complete support of private land owners being permitted to do whatever they want, whenever they want, then I hope someone develops something adjacent to Cascades that will severely detrimentally impact YOUR quality-of-life, whether it be something as benign as a new subdivision of single-family homes that will further stress outdated roadways or something as ominous as a stinky wastewater treatment plant. After all, we have no right to tell anyone how they ought to or ought not to control their land, right?
I'm still VERY concerned about the outcome of Reston's master plan because as long as we, the single largest town...errr.."census designated place" in Fairfax County, do not have independence from Fairfax County as a whole, then we are at the mercy of the county's officials who may decide to do what's best for the county but not necessarily best for Reston without losing any sleep over their decisions because they don't live here and subsequently won't have to endure the negative externalities that may arise. If Reston supposedly had an "amazing" master plan back in the 1960s when the community was developed, then why was it tossed into the trash can and very rarely adhered to in zoning/development decisions? I worry that after spending a few years carefully crafting a handsome and strict master plan that is agreed-upon by the majority of our 65,000 residents that this plan, too, will only serve as a "few pretty maps embedded into some urban planning jargon" that is eschewed in favor of which developers offer the best palm-greasing and jumping-through-hoops actions to impress Fairfax County, regardless as to whether or not those development plans will be in accordance with what WE, the people of Reston, set forth in our master plan. What good is planning NOW for growth LATER if there are no guarantees that our wishes via this master plan will be honored by the county? When I asked this at the session I was given a very "roundabout" answer in which our lecturer tried to assure me that the county would have to plan accordingly to our master plan yet provided no legal basis that WOULD bind county officials to our plan.
I really didn't appreciate your condescending tone, Normie, in regards to that "ScranBarre wants to look at the pretty open space" sort of comment. Do YOU honestly want to be sitting in Washington DC someday knowing that you have to drive well over an hour in any direction to find any rural sanctity because of people who are willing to build tract homes with a three-hour round-trip commute to work simply so they could shave $100,000 off of their housing cost? Is it really worth it? NoVA needs to start crafting a formal master plan, ADHERING TO IT, and permanently designating as many areas as possible as green space and/or wildlife preserves. Some of you may not care about all of the dead animal carcasses littering the roadways throughout Loudoun County, but I do. Why aren't efforts in place now to build UP instead of purely OUT? Do you want NoVA to become the next suburban L.A. because that's where we're currently headed over the next 20-30 years at the rate we've been headed.
Do you want NoVA to become the next suburban L.A. because that's where we're currently headed over the next 20-30 years at the rate we've been headed.
Actually, I wouldn't mind that at all. In fact, I think it would be great. I lived in suburban LA for more than 20 years and loved it. People sneer at LA for being "a hundred suburbs with no real downtown" but IMO that was a very liveable design. Urban sprawl is ok by me, it meant commercial/business areas popped up all over the place instead of being confined to a humongous downtown. Because of this, my commute was always short no matter how many times I changed jobs.
Do YOU honestly want to be sitting in Washington DC someday knowing that you have to drive well over an hour in any direction to find any rural sanctity because of people who are willing to build tract homes with a three-hour round-trip commute to work simply so they could shave $100,000 off of their housing cost?
You think you have to drive well over an hour to get away from the city? Obviously you have not discovered the park system or the Heritage Trail. Or the acres of horse property in Great Falls. Perhaps instead of driving around in Loudoun, you should try getting out of the car and going for a hike. Hike Difficult Run and then head north on the Heritage Trail. You can walk for at least 8 hours without seeing any sign that you're right next to a city.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
At some point Northern Virginia DOES need to become pseudo-communist and draw up urban growth boundaries, similar to what are in place in Oregon and Lexington, Kentucky as two prime examples.
When I asked this at the session I was given a very "roundabout" answer in which our lecturer tried to assure me that the county would have to plan accordingly to our master plan yet provided no legal basis that WOULD bind county officials to our plan. 
